I have been saying, to anyone who will listen, that the 3D craze we are experiencing now is just that — a state of euphoria about 3D that will give way soon. What is up ahead is a ditch. If we can overcome the push back that will develop for 3D, we can jump over the ditch and take 3D to an established mainstream offering. The alternative is to fall into the ditch, where 3D will languish until its next resurrection.

Chris Chinnock
Senior Analyst and Editor
for Insight Media

Such a concept is not new and has been characterized as the "chasm" by other groups. Some technologies just never get past the initial early adopter phase and wallow in the chasm.

What can make 3D stumble? Lots of things like lack of 3D content, poor 3D content, equipment and component incompatibility issues, bad word of mouth and a hundred other little things. This creates push back, which can spiral out of control and kill a product or technology.

What prompted this column today was a story in The New York Times with the headline, "Resistance Forms Against Hollywood’s 3-D Push." In the article, Michael Ceiply quotes a number of influential directors voicing their concerns about 3D movies, as well as consumers who may becoming less enthusiastic about paying higher ticket prices for 3D films — especially if the 3D is not so great.

The gist of the comments from these directors is that not all content should be shot in 3D or converted from 2D. 3D should be considered where it adds value and complements a good story. It cannot be the reason for the film.

They are unhappy because of the studio’s attitude toward 3D, which certainly seems to be more revenue based than artistically motivated. Some studio executives are pushing to convert 2D films and shoot new projects in 3D — and the directors are pushing back — which they should. This 3D craze must give way to a more reasoned approach to the use of 3D. It is not an afterthought in the content creation process, but an integral part. And, not all content should be shot in 3D.

There are plenty in Hollywood who subscribe to this latter point view, but certainly not all the decision makers — especially when piles of cash are involved. Add in the potential for consumer push back on higher 3D ticket prices and we are looking at some bumps on the 3D road that could land us in the ditch. And there are more bumps coming.

In our forecast for the 3DTV market, we have tried to consider some of the forces that will drive 3D adoption. Currently, we are forecasting about 1M 3DTVs for the US/Canada region this year. This is quite conservative with other firms forecasting much higher numbers.

So when asked why, I explain how one of our analyses looked at the historical introductions of consumer electronics products over the last 20 years. We selected a highly successful product introduction to use as a model for our optimistic forecast. But if you look at the forecasted numbers from many other firms, these numbers are at or above our optimistic forecast. That means these forecasts are on a path to make 3DTV one of, if not the most successful consumer electronics product introduction ever.

We see several factors that will slow the penetration of 3DTVs. The most important is the availability of 3D content, which is in short supply. In addition, mediocre to bad 3D content will not help push the market forward — only really good 3D will.

Secondly, we are asking consumers to watch TV in a whole new way — wearing glasses. This may be fine for watching event-oriented content here in the US, but most of the world watches TV while multi-tasking, which is not conducive for wearing glasses.

Thirdly, today’s stereoscopic 3D introduces human factors into TV watching. Not everyone has perfect stereovision and the effect of the 3D is different in everyone, including children. The impact of this on adoption and push back is unknown.

On the other side of the coin, there are some forces pushing for stronger adoption. This includes increasing faster technology adoption cycles and penetrations, as the success of the iPhone and now iPad exemplify. In addition, new 3DTVs are loaded with extra goodies like widgets, Internet connectivity, LED backlights, super thin profiles and state of the art 2D image quality. Any or all of these features can be reasons to buy a 3DTV — even if the buyer doesn’t want the 3D part. Thirdly, inclusion of 3D capabilities in many new models is not a huge cost item, so including it in an expanding product line will happen.

So, if you ignore the push back factors noted above, you might believe 3DTV is headed toward establishing the most successful product penetration curve. But we don’t think so. Where do you stand on these arguments?